How the government describes its extrinsic evidence from Wilson v. Scruggs:
Balducci… had been involved the year before in representing Richard F. “Dickie” Scruggs and the Scruggs Law Firm in the case of Wilson v. Scruggs, in the circuit court of Hinds County, Mississippi. Richard F. Scruggs and The Scruggs Law Firm had been willing on that occasion to spend money to hire Ed Peters for the purpose of corruptly influencing Peters’ close and trusting friend, State Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter. Richard F. Scruggs and The Scruggs Law Firm had also caused the possibility of a federal judgeship to be communicated to Judge DeLaughter in a further effort to corruptly influence the judicial process….
This is the core of the facts in the response. The government argues that this evidence is strikingly similar and goes to proving intent. Here’s the Government response on the motion to exclude similar crime evidence.
Heh, sometimes even lawyers giggle:
I’m a little surprised to see this consistent misspelling of “DeLaughter” with a lowercase l.
You’re right, Lotus, it should be “delaughter”
But I didn’t rob the same guy’s house…it was another house on another street in a different part of town so it can’t be the same type crime can it?